Shared Parenting Legislation

alterumnonlaedere · 2023-08-04T01:49:02+00:00

These laws have a "rebuttable presumption" of shared parenting. That means that if one parent is demonstrated to be inadequate, they can lose their parenting right. But in the absense of such evidence, shared parenting is the rule.

We have had this in Australia since the mid 2000s (Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006). These changes were made under a Conservative government, our current Progressive government is in the process of reversing them - "Family law reforms would overturn Howard-era rules in bid to reduce conflict".

The reforms are expected to anger elements of the father’s rights movement and its champions in Parliament, but one expert says it must occur for the courts to be workable when parents are in serious conflict.

Domestic violence campaigners have welcomed the proposal, saying the move will prevent partners from weaponising the courts against their families.

A 2006 change to the law inserted a presumption that parents would share responsibility for making decisions about a child’s long-term future, and obliged Family Court judges to consider whether custodial care should be split equally.

The Dreyfus reforms would give judges a free hand to decide which care arrangements would best suit a child, based on six factors such as their safety and the ability of either parent to provide care.

hendrixski · 2023-08-04T11:31:44+00:00

Even gender neutral laws are applied in gendered ways. It is therefore not enough to gently recommend to judges that they should consider 50/50 as a default (which is what these laws do). Instead there MUST be explicit protections for the groups that traditionally faced discrimination: e.g. custody laws must protect a child's equal access to their father after divorce.

Comments